On 28 Dec 2005, at 01:28, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> Is, say, the Washington Post site not a top-quality news site?
Really - let's not go there...
> Or how about the Guardian[1]?
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
>
> That Guardian has been the winner for six years in a row of the
> British Newspaper Awards for Best Daily Newspaper on the World
> Wide Web.
... and the site loses money hand over fist, and the company is
losing money (I think), or at least - not doing terribly well - on
the newspaper side of things. The Times, The Indie and the Telegraph
have all moved to a "pay for some content" model. Even the Graun has
"paid" access methods.
High quality journalism is seriously expensive. Keitai suffer from
lack of screen real estate on which to put ads and the like making a
business model for a keitai-only site rather difficult.
In fact there are very few "web only" general news sites that deliver
high quality news reports that is other than a re-write of agency
reports, or a rewrite of other "real news organisation's" reports.
Nick